But it’s true - any calculation of the time value of money always comes out with rich people having a higher value than poor people.

What you are proposing is a world where only the wealthy have the ability to travel on the mode that they choose, while most others are forced by economics onto only mass transportation.

Yes, we should pay mass transit fares via a progressive tax rather than asking riders to do so directly. Mass transit is a public good, just like a library. Most transit systems already operate this way, with 50-90% of their costs covered outside of the farebox.

That’s the same argument as the “flat tax.” It’s incredibly regressive because transportation costs are a much higher proportion of poor people’s income and spending than for rich people.

There’s one obvious solution: make speeding a secondary rather than a primary offense. That way, it can only be cited if something else is going wrong.

I get what you’re saying, but the law without discretion is its own kind of evil. Take the ambiguity and use it in court.

I'll go with the hypocrisy rule. If this is one of the pearl clutching politicians who voted for lower speed limits and speed cameras, then give him a double fine. Otherwise, I am in favor of anyone getting out of a speeding ticket as long as it's not connected to an actual dangerous act.

Exceeding the speed limit, or “speeding,” is not a priori dangerous. Context matters.

Also, if the water is deep enough to splash (versus just spray), you’re probably fine. Just don’t freak out when you feel a little tug on the wheel.

Nope. It’s as soon as he said that tunnels are a great hurricane evacuation system because they don’t flood. 

Asked and answered. Less unsprung weight.

Why haven’t they been aluminum all along? Because it’s racing. Reduce unsprung weight. Find every advantage. If you want a cheap hobby, take up jacks.

Only if they are also limited to the right lane (in practice).

The fatigue of driving 16 hours is far more dangerous than an 85 MPH speed limit.

It’s not a lie - it’s speaking to an equivalent level of safety. Your point is that you want the roads safer (which they are, statistically, than 2000 - but not safe enough. Fair point). The poster is indicating that at an equivalent level of safety, you could increase the limit because of the advances in technology.

If we want fewer people driving, we need to make it harder to get a license, not more expensive to drive a car.

You need to make a distinction between speed limits on limited access highways versus speed limits in towns and cities. Speed limits on limited access highways have almost no correlation with traffic fatalities because there are so many intervening factors.

Almost all freeways should have no speed limits. Most road speed limits are too low. Many city speed limits are too high.

4K each day from now until the end of time. Pretty cheap.

Sorta. But transit activists take away lanes to reduce capacity, which keeps the level of gridlock the same or increases it.